[Consim-l] Littoral Combat Model

[Mike NotSpecified]

Mircea, you do come up with the most interestng stuff!  I have not read this 
in detail, but some first impressions?

A naval strategy article by a fellow named Mahon?  Must be interesting.  Most 
salient observation, naval forces must strike effectivily and first.  Well, 
uh, not exactly ground-breaking there is it?  Outcomes can be reduced to an 
admittely complex appearing equation?  I'm not so sure.  Just because you can 
express something mathematically does not necessarily confer accuracy.  I have 
a feeling that this paper could easily become an historical footnote, along 
the lines of the bragging done on behalf of the Maginot, after some naval 
force tries attacking a land base (and gets blown out of the water).

Is it fair to offer opinions of somebodies thesis after skimming the executive 
summary?  Probably not.  Apologies in advance to Mr. Mahon.  But I will go 
back and read in detail and hope to hear from others of you.  (And I'm sure 
Mr. Mahon doesn't value my opinion anyway)


On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:16:43 +0300
  "Mircea Pauca" <mircea.pauca at gmail.com> wrote:
>    Yet another 'official' model coming with a gamer's thinking:
> "A Littoral Combat Model for Land-Sea Missile Engagement".
> stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA473951
> 
>    I think it refers (even if not specifically) to forcing the Straits of 
> Hormuz...
> However, if I wanted to impress Condi ;-) I'd add refinements at 3 levels:
> 
> - Fine tactical/tech (at least from my experience with Harpoon on PC):
> the 'bunching behaviour' of missile self-seekers mostly hitting and
> overkilling the same exposed ships (more forward, or with bigger radar
> reflection) - so a salvo that by this theory should sink the whole fleet
> may hit 30-40%. Functional wrecks not yet sunk being hit over and
> over again etc. (Or maybe current missiles can communicate to spread
> on all targets and avoid bunching and repeat overkills ?). Firing on
> land targets may get worse, even if ignoring the civilians around -
> that's what the model includes as "area fire" not "direct fire".
>    Ignoring luck is a grave mistake too, aggravating the same problem.
> One German machine gunner on Omaha Beach 1944 happening to
> survive the massive Allied naval fire was credited with ~800 casualties.
>    The stock of ammo of both sides can also be a serious limitation,
> and whether it can, or not, be transferred from hit to functioning 
>launchers.
> 
> - Operational: "a ship's a fool to fight a fort" also means the ship can
> CHOOSE to attack in one of many other places, while a fort must
> wait to fight, or never fight.
> 
> - Grand strategic: missiles on land also have a large cost advantage
> for similar firepower compared to missile-launching ships. So 'fractional
> exchange ratio' should ultimately be expressed in cost. Can Western
> high tech procurement and elite recruiting match the mass manufacturing
> in Russia/China and low wages plus fanatism of fighting people ?
> (I understood a Soviet Ruble was stronger than a US$ for military purposes
> in the Cold War ... also reflecting hidden subsidies in their economies)
> 
>    Thank you for thinking about this,
>    Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Consim-l mailing list
> Consim-l at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/consim-l